That's odd.I just happened to download/install T-Clock 2.4.3 build 471 for a trial today.It seems to work fine. (The calendar is very nice - I can set it almost perfect for my needs.)

I can't reproduce that error you are reporting. If I right-click on the clock in the systray and select Display Properties, it brings up the relevant properties page window: Control Panel\Appearance and Personalisation\Display(and no error message)

IainB, it doesn't look like you're running the Windows 10 Creators Update. It was just rolled out recently. If Windows Update says "you're up to date", there should be a message underneath that text explaining how to download the Creators Update from Microsoft.

The built-in security programs in Win 10 / Edge will delete T-Clock at arrival. At least, they did to me. I then closed Edge and Defender before using Firefox to get and install the new T-Clock which is now running fine

Yes, I wondered about that maybe being an error peculiar to the Creators Update Windows version, or maybe it's an error caused by the update.From the looks of the error panel, I thought that T-Clock might be correctly linking to the correct folder address (the special folder/pane number/address) for the Control Panel\Appearance and Personalisation\Display pane, but that that address may no longer be the correct address for that folder/pane anymore.

The address may have been changed to something different by the Creators Update (i.e., it may have been changed to something else just in that version).Thus, T-Clock is faithfully linking to what was previously the "correct" address, but it's no longer the correct address, post-Creators Update. Broken backwards compatibility.

Just a guess, as I have no idea how T-Clock is getting/using the address for that system pane.

@anandcoral: Sorry for the off-topic request, but could you please provide the hardware spec that you have running the Win10 32-bit OS?And could you summarise your view of its overall performance when using that OS, please? Do you have a basis for comparison? - i.e., did you previously have Win7 32-bit, or something, on that hardware?I'm just interested in your experience with that, as I am considering putting Win10 32-bit on a 32-bit laptop for someone, but am unsure whether it's advisable - i.e, whether maybe it'd be better to stick with the existing Win7 32-bit installation.

IainB, it doesn't look like you're running the Windows 10 Creators Update. It was just rolled out recently. If Windows Update says "you're up to date", there should be a message underneath that text explaining how to download the Creators Update from Microsoft._____________________

Yes, thanks for the helpful tip, @bobofeta. I was aware that I was not running the Windows 10 Creators Update version (I'm in no hurry to install it either). It was that fact that made me say "That's odd" and why I copied my Windows version details. I wondered whether the error was an error in T-Clock, or (more likely) the result of changes in the Win10 Pro 64-bit Creators Update version It rather begins to seem that it might be the latter.

If it is, and if it is indeed a case of broken backwards compatibility, or something like that, then Microsoft may well patch it in while - it's a non-critical error (I would suppose), so not urgent to fix.MS are usually pretty good at maintaining backwards compatibility.

I don't think it's a bug, and I don't think this is a case of just wait until Microsoft fixes it. It's really just a heads-up to the dev that the Creators Update changes some things. This seems to be typical of Windows 10 major releases. It happened with the Windows 10 November Update, the Windows 10 Anniversary Update and will probably happen again with the upcoming Windows 10 Redstone 3 Update. These are very different operating systems. It's just Microsoft's decided to call them all Windows 10 and finally give updates away for free like everyone else is doing. But some low level, third party apps have to be adjusted.

Ah, well, if you think that, then maybe I could be accused of being a tad optimistic in supposing what I did there.

/Rant ONMaybe, for whatever reason, MS won't, in the end, take responsibility for fixing whatever they seem to have broken, and which apparently only they could fix, so then it would be left to the app developer(s) to adapt the apps affected, so that they point to the new address (or whatever it is).Then again, maybe MS will fix it, given time. Fortunately, in terms of priority, at least the wheels don't seem likely to fall off anything critical because of it, meanwhile.I suppose the question is: In this Richmond variant of "Waiting for Godot", how long does one actually wait?

And then, the possibility is that the app developer(s) will adapt the app(s) to be in sync with the new address (or whatever it is) and then, having done so, MS belatedly actually fix it like they should have done in the first place, which then could leave those apps already thus adapted to be out of sync again. Such fun. Stranger things have happened at sea.Some people (not me, you understand) might say that it could thus seem more prudent to take a "Wait-and-see" approach in such cases. They might add that they admit the allure of getting on with and enjoying one's life, rather than spending one's cognitive surplus hovering over a partially crippled Windows OS with a spanner and screwdriver in hand, trying to fix up someone else's obscure mistakes. However, I couldn't possibly comment.

This is all kinda academic in my case anyway, as I am not generally predisposed towards being a "Creators Update" or "pre-release" or whatever-kind-of-ß-tester of new versions of the OS, because being the usual kind of enforced in-production-ß-tester is more than sufficient joy for me./Rant OFF

MS has been putting great effort into decommissioning the venerable old Control Panel in favor of the new Settings Center/Window/Utility/WTF ever their calling it ... So the old Display Settings may very well just be gone..

Maybe, for whatever reason, MS won't, in the end, take responsibility for fixing whatever they seem to have broken, and which apparently only they could fix, so then it would be left to the app developer(s) to adapt the apps affected, so that they point to the new address (or whatever it is).

If you develop for a platform, you know that the platform's developers are under no obligation to support your software. Or at least you should know that. You have to roll with the platform's releases. They didn't intentionally break t-clock. They also didn't intentionally not break it these years. It would be up to a developer to figure out what the problem is, and change/correct the software.

@anandcoral: Sorry for the off-topic request, but could you please provide the hardware spec that you have running the Win10 32-bit OS?And could you summarise your view of its overall performance when using that OS, please? Do you have a basis for comparison? - i.e., did you previously have Win7 32-bit, or something, on that hardware?I'm just interested in your experience with that, as I am considering putting Win10 32-bit on a 32-bit laptop for someone, but am unsure whether it's advisable - i.e, whether maybe it'd be better to stick with the existing Win7 32-bit installation.

@IainB, I had WinXp on my machine which I upgraded to Win8 32 bit. The reason being my home laptop came with Win8 64 bit and I was finding it difficult in working between WinXp and Win8 OS. Now both are Win10 32 and 64 bit. The summary of 32 bit is as below,

T-Clock 2.4.3 build 471 Display Properties throws error

The hardware remaining same, performance of OS is more or less similar. It is the interface which has some learning curve. You may have to give your user some time to guide them "how to find in Win10 which was in WinXp/7" This is the biggest problem/change of this upgrade. And more is coming ... as we finding after each OS update.

I agree with @bobofeta that sooner or later you have to move ahead and upgrade. It is easier to move up alone, but taking users with you is very difficult. I still have user who are using WinXp and are "happy" with it. Though I try to keep my application updated that they work from WinXp to Win10, I do not have courage to ask my user to upgrade. I can not give time to all my thousands users guidance on Win OS changes. I tried to gude some of my relatives when they got Win8 on their new laptop, but they finally switched back to WinXp and I am not interfering.

If you develop for a platform, you know that the platform's developers are under no obligation to support your software. Or at least you should know that. You have to roll with the platform's releases. They didn't intentionally break t-clock. They also didn't intentionally not break it these years. It would be up to a developer to figure out what the problem is, and change/correct the software.

@wraith808, this is the very reason I try not to give OS integration in my applications. I have burned my fingers in Win95 days and given up the thought of it. Not only MS even other company who make compiler / developer system do change their system breaking backward compatibility in some case, reason being moving up, and we developers under them have to adapt accordingly.

And actually - come to think of it... - as precedents go, there's already a workaround in T-Clocks I had to do years ago when the sound control target changed (IIRC) somewhere in the Vista era. So this will probably just be one of those: if(not X) do Y;

Then there was that damn nifty system calendar in 10 that - got moved from where it had been for years... - I never could figure out how to launch back when. How the hell White Tiger found the damn thing I'm not sure...but he did shortly after taking over the project.

@anandcoral:Thanks for the response. Very interesting (to me).If, as you write,

...It is the interface which has some learning curve. You may have to give your user some time to guide them "how to find in Win10 which was in WinXp/7" This is the biggest problem/change of this upgrade. And more is coming ... as we finding after each OS update.________________________

- then I would strongly suggest consideration be given to installing Classic Start Menu - refer Classic Shell (shell alternative for Windows 10, 8, 7) - Mini-ReviewClassic Start Menu also provides an alternative XP, or Vista, or Win7 interface (take your pick). This could be useful for you with your users' needs (as you have described them).

In any event, this worked very well for me and my 2 favourite guinea-pigs (my now 15½ y/o daughter and 6 y/o son). They never noticed the migration from Vista-->Win7-->Win8/8.1-->Win10.

Ergonomically,Classic Start Menu seems to provide a far better GUI anyway (compared to the arguably ergonomically atrocious Metro GUI) and performance/stability seem to be unimpaired and the overhead seems to be minimal.

By providing a consistent and ergonomically sound interface as one migrates across OS upgrades, the process will be relatively transparent - i.e., hardly noticeable by users - and thus they will have little difficulty (minimal learning curve) after the upgrade. It's quite impressive to see this happening with users of the Classic Start Menu.

A lot of my perspective on GUIs comes from experience including, for example, managing the implementation of corporate-wide systems upgrades, where the greatest challenge was often trying to get a large population of users (e.g., knowledge workers in offices, or bank tellers in bank branches) up and running productively as quickly as possible - i.e., with minimum downtime/re-learning. Consistency with the old GUI and ergonomic efficiency were always a priority at the outset, during the system requirements analysis stage.Good ergonomics may be a very real requirement, especially in military and office-based systems and where the ergonomics have already been been finely crafted to meet fairly stringent requirements in the first place.

My experience is that consistency and good ergonomics in the GUI generally tends to be universally beneficial and improves user-acceptance and take-up of the new system, whether it be in cases as above (the military, or banks) or (say) the family unit, or educational programmed-learning environments.

... Then there was that damn nifty system calendar in 10 that - got moved from where it had been for years... - I never could figure out how to launch back when. How the hell White Tiger found the damn thing I'm not sure...but he did shortly after taking over the project.______________________________

- then I would strongly suggest consideration be given to installing Classic Start Menu - refer Classic Shell (shell alternative for Windows 10, 8, 7) - Mini-ReviewClassic Start Menu also provides an alternative XP, or Vista, or Win7 interface (take your pick). This could be useful for you with your users' needs (as you have described them).

I use FARR from my WinXp days and still happy with it. Yes I did suggested and installed "Classic Start Menu" but there are still many windows interface, not just selecting program, which are quite different in Win8/10 than in WinXp, also Win10 now already have "Start Menu". But the users like to stay where they are more comfortable.

If you develop for a platform, you know that the platform's developers are under no obligation to support your software. Or at least you should know that. You have to roll with the platform's releases. They didn't intentionally break t-clock. They also didn't intentionally not break it these years. It would be up to a developer to figure out what the problem is, and change/correct the software.

Since the Anniversary update? Nothing... before that.. It restored the good-old Windows Calendar you used to know pre-Win10

[...]Then there was that damn nifty system calendar in 10 that - got moved from where it had been for years... - I never could figure out how to launch back when. How the hell White Tiger found the damn thing I'm not sure...but he did shortly after taking over the project.

Actually.. "before" since that's the "main" reason by which you forced me to fork T-Clock^^ And in fact.. I've used Google to "figure" it out But the old way got also broken by Windows 10's Anniversary update... which is why there's some ugly workaround now.

@topic well... I have to get my hands on a Creators update first.. my private PC is on the slow-ring just because those updates tend to break a lot of apps (even introduced memory leaks / Windows crashes) and my Windows partitions usually tend to be small... with about 2-3 GB free which is rarely enough for Windows to do a "major" upgrade and thus I'm stuck in an upgrade loop... (installing changes.... reverting changes...). This is also true for my VMs... and besides that... an upgrade also takes >30 minutes (probably an hour and more especially when reverting... since it'll take twice as much in those cases)

Is it the Creators update that's supposed to improve (fix) the update mechanism?

P.S. somehow.. I've never received an mail notification about this topic's creation...